Timeline for Disproving novelty from more than one reference?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 18, 2020 at 8:26 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Aug 12, 2017 at 16:36 | comment | added | user18033 | @user132162 it does allow interesting theoretical cases though. | |
| Aug 12, 2017 at 16:25 | comment | added | user18033 | @user132162 it points out that there might be examples where they are actually different and maybe one could construct an edge case where a non-obvious invention could be not novel by combining two documents, but that would be a one-in-a-million example. And if you're asking about that, the answer would be - we don't know, a court case could go either way. For almost all practical purposes, novelty is a subset of non-obviousness and the few other cases are covered by one source. | |
| Aug 12, 2017 at 16:03 | comment | added | user132162 | The difference between one and more than one sources seems a like a matter of degree, and makes it seem that novelty is just a subset of obviousness. However, the following article points out that they are distinct: patentlyo.com/patent/2008/10/nonobvious-yet.html | |
| Aug 12, 2017 at 15:41 | vote | accept | user132162 | ||
| Aug 12, 2017 at 9:31 | history | edited | user18033 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited body
|
| Aug 12, 2017 at 8:25 | history | answered | user18033 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |